( 1. ) SINGULAR question involved in the present writ petition is whether an accused is entitled to engage an advocate in seizure/confiscation proceedings before the Authorised Officer under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 ?

( 2. ) THE petitioner's request for engaging an advocate in confiscation proceedings is turned down by communicating the order dated 12th January,2012 ( Annexure P/1) which is assailed in the present petition. THE petitioner submits that as per section 30 of the Advocates Act, ,1961 read with sections 19 and 72 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for brevity "1927 Act") the petitioner is entitled to engage an advocate even in confiscation proceedings.

( 3. ) PER contra, Ms. Sangita Pachori, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned order and submits that the petitioner is not entitled to engage an advocate in confiscation proceedings.

( 4. ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

( 5. ) SECTION 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as "1961 Act"), gives right to the advocates to practise throughout the territories to which 1961 Act extends, these are

(1) in all courts including the Supreme Court;

(ii) before any tribunal or person legally authorised to take evidence; and

(iii) before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force entitled to practise.

( 6. ) THE petitioner by placing reliance on section 19 of the 1927 Act submits that a pleader/advocate can appear before the Authorised Officer. Shri Saxena submits that section 30 (ii) of 1961 Act provides that an advocate can appear in proceedings before any person who is legally authorised to take evidence. Shri Saxena then relied on section 72 of 1927 Act which reads thus-

"72. State Government may invest Forest Officers with certain powers.

(1) THE State Government may invest any Forest Officer with all or of the following powers, that is to say :-

(a) power to enter upon any land and to survey, demarcate and make a map of the same;

(b) the powers of a civil court to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents and material objects;

(c) power to issue a search warrant under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ( 5 of 1898); and

(d) power to hold an enquiry into forest offences, and, in the course of such inquiry, to receive and record evidence.

(2) Ary evidence recorded under clause (d) of sub-section (1) admissible in any subsequent trial before a Magistrate, provided that it has been taken in the presence of the accused person."

( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that a conjoint reading of section 30 of 1961 Act and section 72 of 1927 Act makes it crystal clear that the petitioner can appear before the Authorised Officer through his counsel. Section 2 (2) contend the definition of " Forest Officer" which reads thus-

" 'Forest Officer' means any person whom the State Government or any office empowered by the State Government in this behalf, may appoint to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act or to do anything required by this Act or any rule made thereunder to be done by a Forest Officer."

In the considered opinion of this Court, confiscation proceedings are governed by section 52 (Madhya Pradesh Amendment in 1927 Act). A minute and microscopic reading of this section shows that if there is reason to believe for the Forest Officer that forest offence has been committed, he may seize the vehicle, material, ropes, chains etc. which are used in the alleged forest offence. Subsection (4) of section 52 aforesaid prescribes that the Authorised Officer is required to send an intimation in the form prescribed about the proceedings of confiscation to the Magistrate and issue a parallel notice in writing to the accused whose property is seized and then afford an opportunity to the accused person to submit a representation within a reasonable time.

( 8. ) THE words 'reason to believe' are considered by the Apex Cour